Saturday 15 February 2014 19.05 EST
First published on Saturday 15 February 2014 19.05 EST

Situations vacant ads from headhunters seem strewn across the national press. Wanted: an outstanding person of "independence, sound judgment and resilience" to head the new Independent Press Standards Organisation. Oh! and alternatively wanted, if you don't like Ipso and prefer the politicians' royal charter regulator instead, a "person of resilience, independence, confidence and experience" (plus "sound judgment") to chair the recognition panel that will recognise – or de-recognise – regulatory regimes, probably themselves delivered by people of independence, sound judgment and resilience appointed after applying via Advert 1.

Confused? If you're a member of the public seeking "appropriate confidence" in whatever this mishmash of either conflicting or (later) merging schemes provides, then confusion comes with the cornflakes.

Both ads ooze great-and-goodness. The first boss of Ipso – chosen under prevailing "standards in public life" guidelines – will be selected by Sir Hayden Phillips, lately permanent secretary at culture, media and sport; Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, lately justice of the supreme court; Dame Denise Platt, lately chair of the commission for social care inspection; Paul Horrocks, lately editor of the Manchester Evening News, and John Witherow, presently editor of the Times.

The first recognition panel – chosen under under the same guidelines – will be appointed by Dame Anne Pringle, lately British ambassador to Moscow; Dr Chitra Bharucha, lately vice-chair of the BBC Trust; Andrew Flanagan, lately Scottish media executive, now a civil service commissioner; and Elizabeth France, current chair of the Office of Legal Complaints.

What's the difference? On the G-and-G scale, none at all. Lately is as currently does. They could, every one, come to a No 10 Christmas party. They're uniformly resilient, confident etc. But there are a few nuances down the line, to be sure.

One is that Ipso's prospective leader could be a peer, while the charter – hymning "outstanding reputations for fairness and probity" – leaves lords, as well as MPs, ministers, publishers etc, on the bench. Another is that the press is paying for its own ads and systems while Joe Taxpayer (bequeathing a £250,000 starter fund) is stumping up on the recognition front, hiring back office staff, lobbing £400 a day per attendee at Dame Anne and her colleagues when they meet and discuss.

The difficulty is they have nothing to discuss for now – perhaps for ever. No body seeking charter status yet exists, and Ipso, once launched, doesn't want recognition anyway. They are the symbols of what Hacked Off calls "Leveson compliance" that Leveson didn't choose: he recommended monitoring by Ofcom, not this expensive, lugubrious, sanitised edifice.

There must be an easier route through the forest. What about hiring KPMG or some such for a three-yearly audit of Ipso effectiveness? Why hire anybody if you've signed up people of independence, resilience and the rest in the first place? The curlicues of the recognition game are simply reader-, and thus understanding-, repellent. Meanwhile, everybody involved would probably be better off filling sandbags.